Re: [Isis-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01

Uma Chunduri <> Mon, 20 March 2017 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8509E12871F; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YGioiTNXCZMV; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A005313157A; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DJF91770; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:33:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:33:25 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:33:20 -0700
From: Uma Chunduri <>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>, Alia Atlas <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01
Thread-Index: AQHSn0f665ryCG8LmUWtocVGBBHHMKGZVRpQgAB6vwD//4xLIIAAjjCA///P1BCAALjygIADip3QgAADn7A=
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:33:19 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_25B4902B1192E84696414485F5726854018886CDSJCEML701CHMchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.58D01267.01B2, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 9ec673d543c24ebf488dd370527ce8d0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:33:47 -0000


Thx for the clarification.. as I indicated there was no discussion on the mailing list about this and people might have overlooked as the 01 bis draft says it “updates” erroneously.
Have no issues with the updates; but would be good to have some future guidance.
Uma C.

From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) []
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 9:15 PM
To: Uma Chunduri <<>>; Alia Atlas <<>>;<>;<>
Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01

Uma –

This was always intended as a replacement for RFC 6822 – it was my error to label it as an update – thanx to Alia for spotting this.

The bis draft does NOT just describe the modifications – it contains the original text of RFC 6822 plus changes – and Appendix A summarizes the changes.

There is no problem here other than I incorrectly labeled this as an update.


From: Uma Chunduri []
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 5:26 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Alia Atlas;<>;<>
Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01


>I am not aware of any requirement to have the original set of authors be authors of a bis document –

                Sorry to know this..

>and there are certainly other examples where authorship has changed.

                Not seen much in other WGs (but you will have numerous examples contrary to this)…

>And there are obvious practical reasons why authorship may change.

                The problem here is - draft currently says it “updates” 6822, but 95% of the content and spirit is same as 6822. In that case, it should have just described the appropriate changes without completely duplicating the same.
                But that was not the case. Now after ADs suggestion, if we agreed to obsolete 6822, it doesn’t sound logical to replace original authors with new set of contributors.

Uma C.